High CourtsFull Bench(1943) 11 BOM CK 0004

Maneklal Mansukhbhai vs Chimanlal Kalidas

Bombay High Court · Decided on 30 November 1943 · Citation: (1945) 47 BOMLR 574 : (1944) 46 BOMLR 837

HON’BLE JUDGES
Porter, J · George Rankin, J · Clauson, J · Atkin, J
RESULT
Dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 224 words

Atkin, J.—Their Lordships are unable to grant this application. They have, and always would have, every consideration for an applicant who came and said that, without any fault on his part, the case had been heard ex parte; and, wherever he could Satisfy their Lordships that he could have put before them some considerations which might have affected their decision, they would no doubt be willing to give him an opportunity of being heard again ; but the present case, is a case which turns upon construction and upon construction only. The High Court, from which there was the '' appeal, after going carefully into all the arguments, adopted one construction and the Board had given a detailed judgment in which they had dealt with the points taken by the High Court and. had come to an opposite conclusion. It is not suggested that there is anything which could be said to the Board, if they did grant a further hearing, which had not been considered by the Board in giving their judgment on the previous hearing.

2.

In those circumstances it seems to their Lordships that it would be improper to cause the parties to have another hearing which could only have exactly the same result.

3.

Therefore their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that this application should be refused with costs.